Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can I disprove Macro-Evolution
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 12 of 238 (589773)
11-04-2010 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JRTjr
11-03-2010 11:37 PM


DNA is a ‘recipe’ for copying a cell from an original cell. It is a book of instructions; a blueprint.
This is a poor analogy for DNA. If you tossed a blueprint on to a pile of building materials does a house start to form? No. However, if you toss DNA into a cell stuff does happen, things are built.
A recipe or blueprint is an abstraction, a symbolic vision of what is to be built. DNA is not an abstraction. It is not symbolic. It is a physical and integral part of the building process itself.
DNA is much more like the gears in a clock. There is no single gear that codes for 2 o'clock, much like there is no single gene for building an eye. It is the interaction of all the gears in a temporal sequence that results in 2 o'clock in much the same way that it is the physical interaction of many genes that results in an eye or a foot.
Recipes, instruction manuals, and blueprints are the hallmark of Intelligent
Argument from analogy is a logical fallacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JRTjr, posted 11-03-2010 11:37 PM JRTjr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by ICANT, posted 11-04-2010 3:08 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 15 of 238 (589803)
11-04-2010 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ICANT
11-04-2010 3:08 PM


Re: Eye
Do you think you could convince Walter Gehring and his group at the University of Basel in Switzerland of that assertion?
Yes.
Especially since the eyless gene has been used to cause eyes to form in the wings of fruit flies as well as the antenna and legs.
You are confusing the switch with the circuit. Hox genes are the master switches that start the multi-gene cascade that result in the formation of an eye. You might as well argue that the gas pedal in a car is the only part in the car that makes it move since stepping on it makes the car go.
So yes there is information in the DNA that can cause an eye to develop.
The development of the eye involves many, many genes. That is my point.
The question is where did that information come from?
From mutation and selection, as demonstrated by TD Schneider:
quote:
Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 July 15; 28(14): 2794—2799.
Evolution of biological information
Thomas D. Schneider
How do genetic systems gain information by evolutionary processes? Answering this question precisely requires a robust, quantitative measure of information. Fortunately, 50 years ago Claude Shannon defined information as a decrease in the uncertainty of a receiver. For molecular systems, uncertainty is closely related to entropy and hence has clear connections to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These aspects of information theory have allowed the development of a straightforward and practical method of measuring information in genetic control systems. Here this method is used to observe information gain in the binding sites for an artificial ‘protein’ in a computer simulation of evolution. The simulation begins with zero information and, as in naturally occurring genetic systems, the information measured in the fully evolved binding sites is close to that needed to locate the sites in the genome. The transition is rapid, demonstrating that information gain can occur by punctuated equilibrium.
Evolution of biological information - PMC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ICANT, posted 11-04-2010 3:08 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by ICANT, posted 11-04-2010 3:42 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 19 of 238 (589826)
11-04-2010 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by ICANT
11-04-2010 3:42 PM


Re: Eye
So what happens if the eyeless gene is placed in the embro in the genes that form the leg of a fruit fly?
What happens if the eyeless gene is not placed in the embro in the genes that form the leg of a fruit fly?
What happens if the Small gene from a mouse is placed in the embro in the genes that form the leg of a fruit fly?
Is it necessary to input any other genes to get the eye to develop?
If not, would all the information needed to cause the eye to develop in the leg of the fruit fly be contained in the eyeless gene or the Small gene?
I mean no insult here, so don't take this the wrong way. You really need to have a better understanding of what organs and limbs are made of before you can understand how they form. What you need is a semester or two of histology, just to start out. A semester or two of comparative vertebrate anatomy and embryonic development would really help too.
A feature like the eye is made up many, many different types of cells producing different proteins, different cell receptors, etc. You need connective tissue, photoreceptors, nerve cells, mucosal cells, epithelial cells, endothelial cells, and many more that aren't coming to mind. Each of these cell types was ultimately derived from that first, single fertilized ovum that was you. So how do we get all of these different tissue types? Through master control genes that cause a cell lineage to develop into one of the cell types.
If you knock out one of the master switches then the eye does not develop because the cellular signals to develop these tissue types is not communicated to the surrounding cells. Such is the case for the eyeless gene and others. It is like putting a hole in the gas tank of your car and then concluding that the gas tank moves the car because it no longer moves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ICANT, posted 11-04-2010 3:42 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by ICANT, posted 11-04-2010 7:20 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 20 of 238 (589827)
11-04-2010 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by ICANT
11-04-2010 5:04 PM


Re: Eye
I do know if you put the eyeless gene or Small gene in the embryo of a fruit fly in the genes responsible for the leg that the leg will have an eye. That has been done.
In this case, the Hox genes further up the gene cascade are saying "build a leg here", but they turn on the "make an eye here" switch instead. That is what is happening.
Again, you are confusing the switch with the circuit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ICANT, posted 11-04-2010 5:04 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by ICANT, posted 11-04-2010 5:52 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 23 of 238 (589833)
11-04-2010 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by ICANT
11-04-2010 5:48 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution
There is no documented evidence that 'Macro-Evolution' has ever occured.
I do believe that it would be possible to trace my linage back to the mankind male and female that was created in Genesis 1:27 if the history was available. But modern man did not exist before this mankind.
Evidence please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by ICANT, posted 11-04-2010 5:48 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by ICANT, posted 11-04-2010 7:44 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 24 of 238 (589834)
11-04-2010 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by ICANT
11-04-2010 5:52 PM


Re: Eye
Are you saying the leg does not exist?
The problem is that you don't understand what a leg is made of at the cellular level, nor how those cells are derived from stem or pleuripotent cells. Do you even understand what a triploblastic body plan is? Ever heard of the ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm?
Clearly, my explanations are going past you, but it isn't because my explanations are wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ICANT, posted 11-04-2010 5:52 PM ICANT has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 57 of 238 (590049)
11-05-2010 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by ICANT
11-04-2010 7:44 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution
Do you call your picture evidence of 'Macro-Evolution'?
If so it needs much explanation.
The theory of evolution predicts that there should have been species with a mixture of modern human and basal ape features in the past. These fossils fit that prediction. Therefore, these fossils are evidence in support of the theory.
Now as to why I say modern man did not exist prior to the man created in the image/likeness of God.
The oldest known writings are 6800 years old.
Cave paintings are much older than that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by ICANT, posted 11-04-2010 7:44 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 11-05-2010 3:14 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 65 by ICANT, posted 11-05-2010 5:15 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 60 of 238 (590052)
11-05-2010 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by ICANT
11-04-2010 7:20 PM


Re: Eye
As I understand human DNA each cell has a double helix of DNA. Each strand has 750 megabits of information, which contains all the information required to construct a human body.
What does that have anything to do with what I said?
Why do the researchers say they can place the eyeless gene in the embryo of the fruit fly in the gene that builds the leg and it produce a functional eye in that leg?
Why don't you find the spot in the paper where they discuss this matter? Why are you asking me when you can read their paper directly?
I think a gas tank and the eyeless gene is two different things and function in two different ways.
Some have called the eyless the master gene for the eye as it can construct a functional eye.
The eyeless gene constructs the eye in the same way that the key moves the car. The eyeless gene is the switch, not the motor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ICANT, posted 11-04-2010 7:20 PM ICANT has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 61 of 238 (590053)
11-05-2010 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by ICANT
11-05-2010 2:25 PM


Re: How do you deal with 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution?
Well I can find no verifiable, repoducible evidence . . .
Fossils are verifiable and reproducible evidence. They are empirical in every way. When scientist A measures the size of the brow ridge in an H. erectus skull he gets the same measurement as scientist B.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by ICANT, posted 11-05-2010 2:25 PM ICANT has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 64 of 238 (590069)
11-05-2010 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by ICANT
11-05-2010 3:36 PM


Re: How do you deal with 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution?
Why is it my job to pick out your argument and refute it before you present it?
You could at least deal with the arguments that have been put forth.
The theory of evolution predicts that there should have been species that had a mixture of modern human and basal ape features. Fossil species such as H. erectus and H. habilis have a mixture of modern human and basal ape features. Therefore, these fossils are evidence of macroevolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 11-05-2010 3:36 PM ICANT has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 67 of 238 (590082)
11-05-2010 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by ICANT
11-05-2010 5:15 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution
Well I went to school with a fellow we refered to as monkey. Since his head was shaped like the head of a monkey does that mean we came from monkeys?
According to cladistics, we are monkeys. What next? We have hair like mammals so does that make us mammals? Yep, sure does.
I also had a teacher that we called Gorilla Gordon. His head was shaped like a gorilla and he had just about as much body hair. Does that mean we came from gorillas?
If you share a lot of characteristics with your siblings does that mean you came from your cousins? No. But it does indicate that you share a common ancestor.
Just because things look similar does not mean they produced the other.
True or false. The theory of evolution predicts that there should have been species who had a mixture of modern human and basal ape features.
Or perhaps you can try your argument out in a court of law as a defense attorney. You can try to convince juries that even though the swirly patterns of oil found at the crime scene are similar to the swirly patterns of ridges on your client's fingers it doesn't mean that one produced the other. I'm sure they will buy it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by ICANT, posted 11-05-2010 5:15 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by ICANT, posted 11-08-2010 1:11 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 82 of 238 (590498)
11-08-2010 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by ICANT
11-08-2010 1:11 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution
The ToE does not predict anything.
People predict that the ToE predicts certain things.
So your only counterargument is that it is people who use the scientific method? Really? I think we already knew that.
So I will ask again. When people use the theory of evolution to make scientific predictions do those predictions include fossils with a mixture of basal ape and modern human features? Yes or no?
'Macro-Evolution' is one of the things people predict that the Toe predicts.
Yes, the theory of evolution predicts that evolution occurred. Crazy, isn't it?
Out of all the billions of 'Macro-Evolution' events that would be required to have taken place between the first life form on earth to produce all the different life forms of earth today there is no first hand account to read for any of them having taken place.
There is none that are reproducible.
The scientific method does not require a past event to be reproducible. What it requires is that the data produced by measurement or experiment be reproducible. It would really help if you actually understood how the scientific method works.
But they nor anyone else can produce firsthand evidence for just one account of 'Macro-Evolution' having taken place in that 3.8 billion years.
Macroevolution has been directly observed, many times.
Observed Instances of Speciation

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by ICANT, posted 11-08-2010 1:11 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by ICANT, posted 11-08-2010 9:22 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 85 of 238 (590533)
11-08-2010 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by ICANT
11-08-2010 4:18 PM


Re: Eye
Will the ribsome produce a protein if it does not receive an order from the DNA?
A ribosome will produce protein from mRNA no matter where that mRNA came from. This is due to the chemistry of both mRNA and ribosomes.
The DNA in a human cell contains the instructions for the manafacture of over two million proteins.
These are the same type of instructions that hydrogen and oxygen carry for the manufacture of water.
Can the ribosome understand what protein the DNA has requested to be built without the tRNA translating the information being delivered by the mRNA?
You are trying to anthropomorphize chemical reactions. Your post is quite silly, to put it lightly. Ribosomes don't understand anything. They don't have brains.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by ICANT, posted 11-08-2010 4:18 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 11-08-2010 10:24 PM Taq has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 114 of 238 (590715)
11-09-2010 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by ICANT
11-08-2010 9:22 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution
I googled "Is there fossils with a mixture of basal ape and modern human features"
The first hit I got was the message I am replying too.
Would it be asking too much to ask you to use your noodle instead of google?
There are TRANSITIONAL hominid fossils which is verifiable evidence that hominids TRANSITIONED from a common ancestor with apes to modern humans.
There is not one verified instance of 'Macro-Eveloution' above the species level.
Sure there is. There are many known observed instances of speciation:
Observed Instances of Speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Then just produce one instance of 'Macro-Evolution' that is verifiable.
That would be the transition between the common ancestor of chimps and humans and modern humans. It is verified by these fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg
Then it should pose no problem for you to take your bare web site presentation and search it out and present one verifible instance of 'Macro-Evolution' that has taken place.
"Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella."
Observed Instances of Speciation
The evolution of multicellularity. That is definitely macroevolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by ICANT, posted 11-08-2010 9:22 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 2:16 PM Taq has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 116 of 238 (590718)
11-09-2010 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by ICANT
11-08-2010 9:45 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution
Until someone can present verifiable evidence that 'Macro-Evolution' (evolution above the species level) has occured.
Transitional fossil hominids are that verification.
If a man started out and a man ended up on the west coast where would the 'Macro-Evolution' be?
Macroevolution is the total journey. Wouldn't you predict that at some point he would be transitioning between the east coast and the west coast? Wouldn't that be a logical consequence of the process? If we had pictures of this man at many points along the way wouldn't this be verification of his journey?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ICANT, posted 11-08-2010 9:45 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 2:32 PM Taq has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024